AMP/CGI Drilling Project (Suspect #2) Checks Out

Great white egret at San Leandro Bay

According to Janice Adams of Alameda Power, their horizontal drilling project was completed in May, 2014, and did not involve the use of an oil-based drilling mud additive; so it is highly unlikely the Bird Goo is from that source.

Here's a link to her full response: AMP Response. It's pretty impressive.

So back to Suspect #1, the Lagoon Seawall Sewer Replacement Project.



Thanks to the folks at Alameda Sun, the word is getting out about our search for the Bird Killers.

Alameda Sun, May 21, 2015

Drilling Mud "STP" Questions for Alameda Power

"Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others?"

Suspect #2 in my search for the cause of the 2015 Seabird Massacre is a 2014 horizontal directional drilling (HDD) project to lay power conduit to Coast Guard Island from Alameda under the Estuary downstream from where a plume of greyish-tan sludge was reported prior to the massacre of hundreds of seabirds by a mysterious grey goo clinging to their bodies, causing death by hypothermia.

Laboratory analysis by California Fish and Wildlife of the Mystery Goo matches a type of oily "STP"-like* drilling mud additive that accelerates the rate of penetration (ROP) in earth-boring projects such as this drilling mud nightmare.

Drilling mud nightmare

Following is a list of questions I submitted today to Alameda Power about the 2014 CGI conduit drilling project.

"Previously asked:
1. Dates drilling began and ended.
2. What type drilling mud and drilling mud additives were used.

Additional:
3. Please enumerate if exceptions were made to generally-accepted engineering standards for environmental protection.
4. Were exceptions made to City standards for bidding? If so, how were they justified?
5. What, if any, previous experience did California Trenchless Inc (CTI) have with directional drilling projects of this type and scale?
6. How did CTI control and dispose of waste drilling mud? (The on-line contract documents specified a "mud pit" for retaining waste drilling mud, but there was none observed during the several days I watched the drilling during my daily walks.)
7. What geological data did CTI and AMP use to ensure environmental safety, e.g., the nature and composition of the subterranean geologic formation?
8. Did CTI or AMP do post-project testing for drilling mud leakage? If so, what were the results?
9. What level of on-site supervision did AMP have throughout the project? (The drilling was only yards away from AMP's headquarters.)
10. How otherwise did AMP assure themselves of contract compliance?
11. Did AMP perform on-site testing regarding environmental risks such as frac-out and waste mud leakage and disposal?
12. Do AMP and CTI have insurance coverage for environmental risk?
13. Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others? (The use of a drilling mud additive would have accelerated the ROP [rate of penetration], reducing cost by speeding up the project, but would also increase environmental risk.)

Some of the information may not be readily available and can be provided later, but please provide what you can early next week.

I live nearby and am available should my assistance be needed.

Thanks again for your cooperation."

We will get to the bottom of this.

*STP is a popular additive for motor oil that is advertised to reduce friction.

Mystery Goo Suspect #1--a Seawall Sewer Job

"There's yellow and black barrier tape in the bottom of the trench. Is/was there an ongoing investigation (other than mine)?"

The bid document  for a seawall sewer line replacement adjacent to Alameda's finger lagoons provides clues to how a massive amount of drilling mud could have gotten into San Francico Bay via the lagoons causing the January, 2015, massacre of 300 seabirds.

Following are illustrations relating to the seawall sewer line replacement project mentioned in my April 18 post "Mystery Bird Goo Matches Drilling Mud."

This project is the most likely source of the Mystery Goo uncovered so far because of the close proximity of the project to the lagoons and the likelihood the project entailed the use of a drilling mud matching the Mystery Goo's lab results.

Here's the quote from the bidding document:

"5. Installation of sewer pipe by horizontal directional drilling of +- 91 LF of 8" sewer main between two manholes in close proximity to existing homes using front steer guided bore and jack method with steel bend VCP. Install new sewer manhole and rehabilitate existing sewer manhole with epoxy/cement like coating on Hawthorne Street." 

Hawthorne Street is a few blocks west of Paru Street, where another part of the sewer project takes place. These photos concentrate on a Paru Street trench scaled down in dimensions and depth from a directional drilling project I observed last summer at the opposite end of Grand Avenue for pulling power conduit under the Estuary to Coast Guard Island.

The ten-inch sewer pipe mentioned in the bid document appears in the distance behind the fence bordering Grand Avenue (Image 3a.) The proximity of the sewer line to the lagoon is evident. Drilling near that pipe would risk leakage of drilling mud into the lagoon.

(Click photo to enlarge)

 Image 3b shows the scale of this western  section of the network of finger lagoons. (You can "drill down" with Google Maps for a broader perspective on these finger lagoons.)

Image 3c gives a closer view of the rusty ten-inch pipe shielded from the elements by a roof of rusted corrugated tin. The large red round structure is a pumping station scheduled for replacement as part of the project. Has this portion been delayed? Why?

Image 3d is a cose-up of the pipe from the opposite side of the chain-link fence where Paru Street dead-ends at the lagoon.. Note the white arrow spray-painted along the fence, perhaps to show workers the direction to drill.

Image 3e shows a trench covered with a thin sheet of plywood. As mentioned above, this trench is similar in dimensions and depth to the trench in the CGI drilling project completed last summer. A collapsed "City of Alameda" safety barrier sign lies flat at the far end of the trench.

Image 3f is a close-up of the trench with the city sign arranged for ease of reading. Drilling would have begun just below the left "toe" of the sign and made a left turn toward Grand Avenue, as the white arrow indicated.

The following Youtube link illustrates a drilling method similar to the one specified in the bid document: (Click here for video illustrating a similar drilling project.) Note the drilling fluid being released through the drill bit. Guided directional drilling can be accomplished with a variety of equipment, but it's a well-established technology.


These photos raise as many questions as they answer, but they suggest that drilling occurred here and that the City was involved. Fresh grass has begun growing on adjacent piles of loose fill dirt. The City sign, the apparent age of the of the trench, the trench's proximity to the lagoon seawall and the specification of "directional drilling" in the bid document all imply this trench could have had something to do with the sewer line replacement project.

The dirt at the far end of the trench was quite damp, while the uphill portion was dry. This indicates the seawall is not sealed if lagoon water can seep into the trench and that drilling fluid could have seeped through into the lagoon.


Why has the trench remained open all this time? Why is an unsafe trench left exposing passersby to injury? Did the contractor(s) drill at the wrong location? Was there a miscommunication or was this an approved test outside the scope of the sewer replacement project? There is yellow and black barrier tape in the bottom of the trench. Is/was there an ongoing investigation (other than mine)? If so, what were the findings and conclusions?

A forgotten trench at the end of a dead-end street.

The mystery continues.


Incidentally, below are a couple of photos I took of a snowy egret just below the culvert mentioned at the beginning of this article. Note the familiar grey smudge on its head. Five months after the first bird deaths, the goo keeps showing up.

 

Well-drilling Surfactant Matches the Mystery "Goo"

Progress is being made in identifying the seabird-killing Mystery Goo.

A 2007 patent application (see below) reveals that a surfactant* used in well drilling contains components matching eighty percent (four out of five) of the Goo's ingredients.

Silicone fluids**, Tung oil, seed oil, and animal fats (e.g., fish oil) are present in the surfactant and are among the five Goo components in lab results reported by Janna Rinderneck, the Fish and Wildlife scientist who managed the Goo's testing.

As quoted in SFGate.com, Rinderneck lists five probable components of the Goo:

"Scientists at several state and federal laboratories determined after more than two weeks of research that the substance was 'a mixture of nonpetroleum-based fats or oils.' ...'The exact oil- or fat-based product has not been determined, but likely suspects are:1) silicone fluids, 2) tung oils, 3) resins or rosin oils, 4) animal fats, and 5) edible or inedible seed oils from plants,' said Janna Rinderneck, an environmental scientist with the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response."

As shown below, seed oils, tung oil and animal fats (fish oil) are specifically mentioned in the surfactant's patent application. Silicone, being a polymer, qualifies as the "polymeric additive.":

"...a polymeric additive** coating the powdered solid; wherein the polymeric additive comprises a polymer ...at least one selected from soybean oil, linseed oil, grapeseed oil, cashew nut shell oil; perilla oil, tung oil, oiticia oil, safflower oil, poppy oil, hemp oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, high-oleic triglycerides, triglycerides of euphorbia plants, peanut oil, olive oil, olive kernel oil, almond oil, kapok oil, hazelnut oil, apricot kernel oil, beechnut oil, lupine oil, maize oil, sesame oil, grapeseed oil, lallemantia oil, castor oil, herring oil, sardine oil..."

Here's the full application: Patent Application for Surfactant with Goo Ingredients (Click Here)

Only petroleum has been ruled out. No item from this non-petroleum list has at this point been ruled out, but the presence of four of the five Goo ingredients points to a surfactant as the source of the Goo.

Now all that's needed to prove the Goo originated in Alameda's lagoons is to find residues of these ingredients there.

Or, maybe a whistle-blower will come forward.



*Definition and discussion of surfactants: What is a Surfactant? (Click Here)
**Silicone is a polymer.

Alameda's Tidal Curse

The Sludge Could Have Returned Dozens, if not Hundreds of Times

"What I found sent a chill up my spine.  ...Like a toilet flushing backward, the "bad stuff" kept returning. Alameda's Tidal Curse was a death trap for marine life."

Someone asked, "If the sludge you saw in October was the Bird Goo, how could it take from October to January, ten weeks, to kill the seabirds?"

To answer that question I studied tidal charts for October 12, 2014, the day I observed and reported the plume of sludge. What I found sent a chill up my spine.

The sludge took 3 1/2 hours (from 2:40 to 6:10) to transit from the south shore lagoon portal to just beyond the Park Street bridge. It had twice that distance to cover before tide changed at 9:21. It took the entire six-hour tidal cycle for the sludge to arrive at the mouth of the Oakand-Alameda Estuary, then the gooey mess would have been drawn right back up the same Estuary by the powerful ship channel current--BACK INTO SAN LEANDRO BAY WHERE SEABIRDS WERE ROOSTING FOR THE NIGHT!

Then the tide reversed again, and the process was repeated! For weeks, the deadly sludge I saw would have been transported back and forth along the Estuary between San Francisco Bay and San Leandro Bay, dousing hundreds of migrating seabirds again and again with layer after layer of toxic goo. (See illustration below, Image 1fx)

(click to enlarge photo)

Path of Sludge Ploom

Given the strength of the tide in the Estuary and the distance and speed of the tidewaters, whatever is carried out from San Leandro Bay is most likely to return on the next incoming tide. Then the process is repeated, endlessly.

Like a toilet flushing backward, the "bad stuff" kept returning. Alameda's Tidal Curse was a death trap for marine life.

The sludge's mass gradually diminished over time as some got deposited along the shoreline and bits were carried out into San Francisco Bay. But how long did that take, how many cycles? And how toxic were/are the residues to the seaweed and other marine life (fishes, barnacles, mussels, shrimps, crabs?)

San Leandro Bay's formerly robust marine life is feeding habitat for thousands of seabirds and their entire food chain. As food supply diminishes, so goes the seabird population.


The streaks of foam I saw April 12 (See Continuing Evidence of a Lethal Surfactant), if they are remnants of the initial October 2014 plume, could have returned hundreds of times during the intervening six months.

Migrant seabirds came here to fatten up for their return flight north, only to be drenched daily with a mixture of viscous chemical compounds we now know to be drilling mud (click here for April 19 blog identifying the Goo as drilling mud) and a lethal surfactant that got pushed farther and farther inland with each cycle.

Each successive dousing of surfactant would deposit another layer, to the point where death from hypothermia would result. A surfactant that might normally be considered harmless in a single dose would be lethal. (Click here for a detailed explanation of surfactants.)


Due to this Tidal Curse phenomenon, massive and lasting damage has likely been wreaked on the Estuary and San Leandro Bay as the tides have come and gone and layer after layer of toxic chemicals were deposited on rocks and seaweed and all forms of marine life and habitat, from pilings to bird feathers.

The chemical properties of a surfactant make it the ultimate toxin in a marine environment because surfactant molecules seek always to get between water and on-aqueous matter. Since essentially no marine life or habitat can escape a surfactant, its killing power is incalculable.